Source – canadianpatriot.org
- ‘…Standard Oil, controlled by the Rockefeller family, developed in conjunction with I.G. Farben the hydrogenation process required to produce synthetic gasoline for the Wehrmacht; it also supplied ethyl lead and synthetic rubber. In Sutton’s judgement, Standard Oil for over a decade “aided the Nazi war machine while refusing to aid the United States,” and without this assistance, “the Wehrmacht could not have gone to war in 1939”
Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State
By David A. Hughes
The response to the “Covid-19 pandemic” has much in common with the birth of the Third Reich. Agamben (2021, 8), for example, likens the emergency legislation passed in 2020 to the suspension of the Weimar Constitution in 1933, and Davis (2021b) explains how, through a raft of legislation being rammed through Parliament while the population’s attention is focused elsewhere, the UK is being turned into a constitutional dictatorship. UK government agencies now have the mandates to commit crimes with impunity; protests will be effectively criminalized or shut down under extraordinary police powers; online dissent will be censored; and journalists will no longer be allowed to report any information deemed contrary to the “national interest” (Davis 2021b).
The “Covid-19 pandemic” functions as the Big Lie on which this is all premised, i.e. a lie so huge that ordinary people would not imagine it to be possible. To quote Mein Kampf:
“Because the […] masses […] are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”
As Rancourt et al. (2021) demonstrate scientifically, there was no viral pandemic, only what Davis (2021a), based on several hundred pages of argumentation, calls a “pseudopandemic,” modelled on the fake “swine flu pandemic” of 2009 (Fumento 2010). Yet, because of the propaganda and the applied behavioural psychology deployed as part of the psychological warfare targeting the unconscious mind, cognitive dissonance prevents many people from seeing or admitting this, even when presented with the evidence. Propaganda specialist Mark Crispin Miller reflects: “I used to think it tasteless to compare our system to Nazi Germany. I no longer think so” (2021, 30 mins).
Hitler was, perhaps, the first to see that liberal democracy can be subverted by playing on the unconscious fears of the masses. If an existential threat is presented, the masses can be induced to sacrifice liberty for the promise of security. At a visceral level, they are
“far more satisfied by a doctrine which tolerates no rival [promises security] than by the grant of liberal freedom. They neither realize the impudence with which they are […] terrorized, nor the outrageous curtailment of their human liberties, for in no way does the delusion of this doctrine dawn on them.”(cited in Fromm 1942, 191)This is the model of imposing authority in a climate of terror. The masses can be terrorized into surrendering their liberties, and it will never occur to them that they have been lied to on a monumental scale — that the threat was fictitious. Thus, for example, while Hitler lambasted international bankers and reparation payments for bringing Germany to its knees, the truth was that German reparations payments fell to around one eighth of previous levels following the Hoover Moratorium (1931) and Lausanne Agreement (1932), the Bank for International Settlements managed Nazi gold, and the Nazis continued to honour their Young Plan obligations even during World War II.
The same playbook of using a Big Lie to generate mass fear for authoritarian purposes has been evident in “Covid-19.” Klaus Schwab practically announced as much in June 2020:
“Most people, fearful of the danger posed by COVID-19 [in a] a life-or-death kind of situation […] will agree that in such circumstances public power can rightfully override individual rights. Then, when the crisis is over, some may realize that their country has suddenly been transformed into a place where they no longer wish to live.” (Schwab and Malleret 2020, 117)
By the time the lie is exposed, it is too late, “for the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying” (Hitler 1969, 134). Again, Schwab seems familiar with this principle: there will be no going back to how things were, because “the cut which we have now is much too strong in order not to leave traces” (cited in Clark 2020). Schwab’s protégé, Yuval Noah Harari, also belongs to the conspiracy of expert liars: “If you repeat a lie often enough,” he claims, “people will think it’s the truth. And the bigger the lie, the better, because people won’t even think about how something so big can be a lie.”
Desmet (2022) describes the process of “mass formation” under “Covid-19” that recalls the mass hysteria witnessed in Nazi Germany. Agamben observes that people accepted the new “lockdown” arrangement “as if it were obvious, being “ready to sacrifice practically everything — their life conditions, their social relationships, their work, even their friendships, as well as their religious and political convictions” (2021, 17). This is reminiscent of the “millions in [Nazi] Germany [who] were as eager to surrender their freedom as their fathers were to fight for it” (Fromm 1942, 3).
The Nazi principle that “the activities of the individual […] must be carried on within the framework of the whole and for the whole good of all” (cited in Lane and Rupp 1978, 41) was reincarnated as sacrificing individual liberty in the name of “protecting others.” Just as the Nazis painted the Jews as “unclean” and a public health risk, so propaganda slogans such as the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” served a similar scapegoating function.
Eugenics themes associated with Nazi Germany reared their ugly head. Ehret (2021), in an article titled “Nazi Healthcare revived across the Five Eyes,” notes that the same organizations that promoted eugenics policy in Nazi Germany and North America — including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and Engender Health (previously known as the Human Sterilization League for Human Betterment) — are now implicated in mRNA “vaccine” development alongside the Galton Institute (formerly the British Eugenics Association). The Gates family could also be added to this list (Corbett 2020). The Nazis were notorious for their grim medical experiments on human beings without their consent, and the dangerous experimental injections masquerading as “Covid-19 vaccines,” foisted recklessly on unsuspecting populations through regulatory capture, corrupt political and medical establishments, and a military-grade propaganda onslaught (Hughes 2022), likewise belong “firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia” (Polyakova 2021). Corbett (2021) describes the “‘Nazification’ of the NHS,” whereby public health services have been placed under a “command-and-control regime” and subordinated to the new biosecurity paradigm, issuing in all manner of unethical practices. Medical professionals who speak out are stripped of their licence to practice. As Dr. Francis Christian told a disciplinary panel at the University of Saskatchewan:
“These are the types of panels that were set up in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany […] It’s really disturbing that because I call for informed consent, I am not allowed to practice […] This is disturbing, dystopian, and not acceptable […] The truth will come out, and when it does you guys will be in big trouble.”Given all of the above, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that a deliberate attempt is underway to collapse liberal democracy using psychological warfare techniques learned from the Nazis and to replace it with a eugenics-based form of totalitarianism.
Explaining the Resurgence of Nazism
Whence, then, has this unexpected explosion of Nazi themes and influences arisen? After all, the Nazis were ostensibly defeated in 1945, and the end of the Soviet Union was supposed to mark the definitive triumph of Western liberalism (Fukuyama 1989). The answer proposed here is that Wall Street — the apex of international finance capital and a “dominating complex” including “not just banks and law firms but also the oil majors” (Scott 2017, 14) — has always been wedded to National Socialism as the most ruthless means of crushing working class resistance. Having subverted the Bolshevik Revolution and turned the Soviet Union into a giant opportunity to acquire financial control over nationalized industries on a model previously established in Latin America (Sutton 2011), Wall Street looked to do the same in Germany and the United States. The model was “corporate socialism,” which involves centralizing power in the “pecuniary interests of the international bankers,” something best achieved “within a collectivist society” (Sutton 2016, 173). Stalin’s “socialism in one country,” National Socialism, and Roosevelt’s New Deal were all forms of corporate socialism, in which the power of the state is made available to big business (Sutton 2016, 50, 121).
Competition is thereby eliminated for an oligopoly of large corporations whose operations are financed (and thus ultimately directed) by Wall Street. Roosevelt and Hitler both took office in March 1933, and “both Hitler’s New Order and Roosevelt’s New Deal were backed by the same industrialists and in content were quite similar — i.e. they were both plans for a corporate state,” a concept previously introduced by Mussolini (Sutton 2016, 121). The New Deal was the outcome of the Swope Plan, named after General Electric President Gerard Swope, whose company was also involved in financing Hitler and electrifying the Soviet Union.
From July 1933 through 1934, Wall Street financiers and wealthy industrialists planned a coup d’état in the United States. The “Business Plot,” as it became known, was financed by Irénée duPont, J.P. Morgan, and other wealthy industrialists including William Knudsen (president of General Motors), Robert Clark (heir to the Singer Sewing Machine Corporation), Grayson Murphy (director of Goodyear), and the Pew family of Sun Oil (Yeadon and Hawkins 2008, 129). Had the abortive coup not been foiled by its intended leader, General Smedley Butler, the United States would likely have followed Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on the path to totalitarianism, conceivably inaugurating the world of “garrison states” envisaged by Harold Lasswell in 1939, in which political opposition, legislatures, and free speech are abolished and dissidents are sent to forced labour camps (Lasswell 2002, 146). The plan to destroy liberal democracy in the interests of finance capital is, thus, approximately eight decades old.
Although the Business Plot and Nazi Germany were defeated, Wall Street representatives oversaw the recruitment of ex-Nazis to the United States after World War II. Through the national security apparatus they created in 1947 — in particular through the CIA at the heart of a transnational deep state (Tunander 2016; Scott 2017) — they continued to crush working class resistance ruthlessly using methods derived from the Nazis, including death squads (Gill 2004, 85-6, 155, 255), torture (McCoy 2007), false flag terrorism (Ganser 2005; Davis 2018), biochemical warfare (Kaye 2018), surveillance-based targeting of political opponents (Klein 2007, 91; van der Pijl 2022, 58-9), and the mass killing of civilians (Valentine 2017). In the twentieth century, such methods were mostly reserved for non-Western populations to facilitate US imperialism under the pretext of a “Cold War” with the Soviet Union (Ahmed 2012, 70).
The end of the Soviet Union meant that a new enemy had to be found for the securitization paradigm to continue to function (i.e. convincing the public that extraordinary measures, incompatible with democracy and the rule of law, are needed to deal with an alleged existential threat). In 1991, the Club of Rome proposed a new “common enemy against whom we can unite,” i.e. “humanity itself” for its disastrous inference in natural processes (King and Schneider 1991, 115). But while the green agenda — itself deriving from Nazi ecologism (Brüggemeier et al. 2005; Staudenmaier 2011) — struggled to gain traction, Carter et al. (1998, 81) envisaged a “transforming event” that would, “like Pearl Harbor [… ] divide our past and future into a before and after,” involving “loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime,” and necessitating “draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.” Similarly, the Project for a New American Century (2000) claimed that the rebuilding of America’s defences would be a drawn-out affair “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” 9/11 was duly used as the pretext, not only for imperialist wars abroad, but also for increased authoritarianism at home, its official narrative constituting another Big Lie which academics are powerless to defend (Hughes 2020).
Rising social tensions in the West following years of “austerity” and surging levels of inequality resulting from the 2008 financial crisis were met with an escalation in the number of terrorist attacks (elaborated below) intended to reimpose discipline on populations between 2015 and 2017, especially in France (van der Pijl 2022, 63-4). But when protests around the world began to assume a socially progressive form not easily assimilated by “populist” movements in 2018-19, it became clear that a new paradigm of social control was needed (van der Pijl 2022, 54-58). “Covid-19” provides the pretext for inaugurating that new paradigm. As Agamben writes,
“If the powers that rule the world have decided to use this pandemic — and it’s irrelevant whether it is real or simulated — as pretext for transforming top to bottom the paradigms of their governance, this means that those models were in progressive, unavoidable decline, and therefore in those powers’ eyes no longer fit for purpose.”
We are currently in the midst of an attempted paradigm shift. Liberal democracy, long since hollowed out by the “War on Terror,” is now finished, and its intended successor is technocracy, a totalitarian control system based on data-driven scientific dictatorship (Wood 2018). If successfully implemented, technocracy will be worse than anything envisaged by Hitler or Stalin, because it amounts to the digital enslavement of humanity through biometric nanotechnologies, constant surveillance and monitoring as part of the “Internet of Bodies,” central bank digital currencies, and a Chinese-style social credit system (Davis 2022; Broudy and Kyrie 2021; Wood 2019). Such an outcome would be potentially irreversible. The psychological warfare model for its rollout is the Wall Street-backed Nazi takedown of the Weimar Republic.
Wall Street and Rise of Hitler
The Nazis could never have come to power, built up their industry, or gone to war were it not for the backing of Wall Street. Sutton (2016) documents the financial audit trail linking Wall Street to the rise of Hitler, going back to the J.P. Morgan-sponsored Dawes Plan of 1924, ostensibly intended to help Germany with reparations payments. The loans extended to Germany under the Dawes Plan were used to “create and consolidate the gigantic chemical and steel combinations of I.G. Farben and Vereinigte Stahlwerke,” cartels which not only sponsored Hitler but also staged war games exercises in 1935-6 and supplied the key war materials used in World War II (including synthetic gasoline, 95% of explosives, and Zyklon B) (Sutton 2016, 23-4, 31). Roughly 75% of this loan money came from just three US investment banks: Dillon, Read Co.; Harris, Forbes & Co.; and National City Company, which in turn reaped most of the profits (Sutton 2016, 29).
It was specifically Wall Street investment bankers, plus Henry Ford — and not “the vast bulk of independent American industrialists” — who enabled the build-up of Nazi industry:
“General Motors, Ford, General Electric, DuPont and the handful of U.S. companies intimately involved with the development of Nazi Germany were — except for the Ford Motor Company — controlled by the Wall Street elite — the J.P. Morgan firm, the Rockefeller Chase Bank and to a lesser extent the Warburg Manhattan bank.”(SUTTON 2016, 31, 59)
For example, the two largest tank producers in Nazi Germany, Opel and Ford A.G., were subsidiaries of US companies controlled, respectively, by J.P. Morgan and Ford. Within this structure, DuPont also sponsored pro-Hitler groups in the United States (Yeadon and Hawkins 2008, 129).
Henry Ford financed Hitler from the early 1920s on, and Hitler lifted sections of Ford’s book The International Jew verbatim in Mein Kampf. Hitler awarded Ford the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, a Nazi decoration for distinguished foreigners, in 1938, and kept a portrait of Ford on prominent display in his office (Sutton 2016, 92-93). Ford manufactured vehicles for the U.S. Army and the Wehrmacht during World War II, profiting from both sides. Ford A.G. plants, like those of German General Electric, were not targeted for bombing during World War II, which was obviously too profitable to bring to a premature conclusion.
Prominent German industrialists and financiers, lured by Hitler’s promise to destroy the trade unions and the political left, covertly financed the Nazi Party, e.g. Alfried Krupp, Günther Quandt, Hugo Stinnes, Fritz Thyssen, Albert Vögler, and Kurt Baron von Schröder. These industrialists were “predominantly directors of cartels with American associations, ownership, participation, or some form of subsidiary connection” (Sutton 2016, 101). For example, whereas German General Electric (AEG) and Osram (with Gerard Swope and Owen D. Young holding influential positions in both) financed Hitler, Siemens, which was without American directors, did not (Sutton 2016, 59).
The McCormack-Dickstein Committee (1934/35) found that the shipping company, Hamburg-America Line, owned by W. Averell Harriman, had provided free passage to Germany to US journalists willing to write favourably about Hitler’s rise to power, while bringing fascist sympathizers into the United States. The President of W. A. Harriman & Co was George Herbert Walker, whose son-in-law, Prescott Bush (the father and grandfather of two future US presidents), sat on the board of directors. Bush was also a director (and erstwhile vice-president) of Union Banking Corporation, established in 1924 as a subsidiary of W.A. Harriman & Co., whose assets were seized by the U.S. government in 1942 under the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. Bush, a bonesman like Harriman, was also a partner in Brown Brothers Harriman (established 1931), which acted as the U.S. base for the Hitler-supporting industrialist Fritz Thyssen. The Harrimans were “intimately connected with prominent Nazis Kouwenhoven and Groeninger and a Nazi front bank, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart” (Sutton 2016, 107).
The law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, which originally advised John Pierpont Morgan during the creation of Edison General Electric in 1882 and invented the concept of a holding company to avoid antitrust laws, had “extensive business dealings with numerous German companies and banks that had supported the Third Reich” (Trento 2001, 25). The columnist Drew Pearson listed the firm’s German clients who had contributed money to the Nazis, describing John Foster Dulles (a partner in the firm along with his brother Allen) as the linchpin of “the banking circles that rescued Adolf Hitler from the financial depths and set up his Nazi party as a going concern” (cited in Kinzer 2014, 51). Sullivan and Cromwell floated the first US bonds issued by Krupp A.G., extended I.G. Farben’s reach as part of an international nickel cartel, and helped to block Canadian restrictions on steel exports to German arms manufacturers (Kinzer 2014, 51).
Standard Oil, controlled by the Rockefeller family, developed in conjunction with I.G. Farben the hydrogenation process required to produce synthetic gasoline for the Wehrmacht; it also supplied ethyl lead and synthetic rubber. In Sutton’s judgement, Standard Oil for over a decade “aided the Nazi war machine while refusing to aid the United States,” and without this assistance, “the Wehrmacht could not have gone to war in 1939” (Sutton 2016, 75). The Rockefeller Chase Bank was accused of collaborating with the Nazis in World War II (Sutton 2016, 149).
This complex web of finance and business interconnections demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the US ruling class was profoundly sympathetic to Hitler and the project of National Socialism. It also confirms the accuracy of Marxist analysis from the 1930s that fascism (the default term before Arendt distinguished between it and totalitarianism) represents “a tool in the hands of finance capital” (Trotsky 1977, 173), indeed nothing less than “an open terroristic dictatorship of the […] most imperialistic elements of finance capital” (Georgi Dimitrov, cited in Marcon 2021, 55).
The Failures of Denazification…
Continued In Part 2…